There are differences:

1. Copying data through a protocol that purports to be integrated with the network frames that copying as a part of that network. If it was acquired through a bridge that does not respect federation then it is dishonestly coopting the legitimacy of the fediverse. Screenshots or copy-pastes won’t have the same appearance of integration and will be intuitively understood by the reader as being lifted from another context. This happens all the time and we’re very familiar with it. If copying data were all this was about, this solution should be sufficient.

2. It brings fediverse users into direct contact with non-federated networks in a way that they have not consented to. The ability to post directly back & forth exposes people to the kinds of discussions that we had previously moderated out of our networks. Defederation is an important tool for limiting the access bad actors have to our discussions, and accepting a situation where we can no longer defederate neuters that tool.

This isn’t just about “information wants to be free”. This is about keeping the door closed to the bigots, and forcing them to come onto our territory if they want to talk to us, so we can kick them out the moment they show their asses.

EDIT:

Spinning up a new instance then federating with you, then bridging the content from there to the defederated instance.

This is exactly part of the problem with a bridge that doesn’t rely on federation. With threads, we could just defederate and forget about it. With a bridge like this, we’re playing whackamole with every anonymous instance that bluesky spins up, which they can do easily faster than we can detect them.

If this open source system is told to pack its bags and leave, then yes, they can do it more covertly, but if they do that then they’re doing shady shit, and that can be exposed as the shady shit that it is. The point of protesting this is saying that we won’t allow this kind of entryism to openly exist on the network.

I can’t decide if I hate that or love it.

I guess “subs” isn’t exactly a reddit specific term. I don’t even know if it started there tbh.

I’ve just realised there’s nothing wrong with taking some of the language they used, we are after all following the basic link aggregator format.

I like “group” actually. It’s short and descriptive.

Yeah, I don’t see anyone adopting “mags” or “zines” either.

You’re right, they aren’t trying to make something sustainable. I guess I was giving them too much credit when I said that.

The problem they’re facing here is that if they can’t sustain even the appearance of a functioning site that investors might want to buy, then they fail at that too.

So maybe the best way to fix this is just to ride it out and not close the subs, but if they’re just full of users that have finally clocked why mods are needed and that the place sucks now, that’s also a bad look.

If the search engines start to realise that it’s a cesspit with nothing worth linking to anymore, then that really hits their metrics. I’ve just realised I really need to get onto downloading my posts and deleting them.

Yeah, the problem is that the subs used to be the only place on the internet where a given community could be mainstream, so being in a position of power means you’re stuck trying to make everybody happy.

On federated networks you can have multiple communities with the same local name coexisting, so if you don’t like one set of mods you can go elsewhere. I’m not saying that solves all the problems, but it takes off the pressure of being the piracy sub mod.

Seems like the way for reddit to “solve” this is to just close bad subs.

But that’s easily exploited, if people migrate to other subs and start protesting the sub closures, those subs get worse and they need to be closed…

Oh no, reddit, did you just discover that you relied on your users to make your site good and by screwing them over you’ve made your entire business unsustainable at scale?

Also, somewhat related, is there a short snappy name for lemmy communities? Some people call them subs out of habit but I don’t wanna do that, and “communities” is four whole syllables, and ain’t nobody got time for that.

I have firefox and ublock and they’re not always working, so I just open the video url in any video player that supports it. In potplayer I just copy the video url and use ctrl+v in the main video window and it opens with no issues.

you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. […] that’s a straw man you yourself constructed […] I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.

All of this is pure projection. You don’t need to invent an elaborate fantasy about what a bad thinky person I am in order to make a point, if you have one.

You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

And this fucking bullshit is just gaslighting. The thread is still here, at least for now. I can read it.

What matters is what can be done with the protocol. Defederation is baked in at this point, and if it goes off the rails we can just fork it.

And I can see you don’t have anything to back up your claim that federation is somehow an unimportant side feature of federation.

A car without brakes is a death trap. You use brakes exactly in proportion to how much you use the accelerator. Your analogy is garbage. It’s like saying “you have a house for the space inside, not for the roof overhead”. It’s nonsensical.

Federation and defederation are two sides of the same coin. The one is the shadow of the other. Interpersonal boundaries are necessary for healthy relationships IRL, and they mainly come into play when telling people no, not when telling them yes. AP was absolutely designed with disconnection in mind. We know that because it’s a core function. If you want to tell me otherwise then you need to give me a quote, and then explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway.

Pretending federation is about connection and not disconnection is disingenuous. It’s meaningless fluff that as far as I can tell is perfectly suited to convincing people to let their guard down, and may well have been designed for that purpose.

You said:

ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart.

This is just blatantly wrong. I was addressing this and only this.

I don’t know if I agree with transitive defederation, I did not take a position on it, and I don’t know why you’re trying to argue it with me except that you know this kumbayah crap isn’t a position you can argue.

I just know BS when I smell it, and I’m sick of smelling this particular kind.

Activitypub is deliberately designed to allow disconnection as and when needed. Splitting apart is entirely the point of having defederation.

I do not understand this idea that the fediverse was always meant to be some kumbayah peace & love positive vibes only space and that utilising defederation is going to wound its delicate soul.

No. Federation is a system with teeth; if we defang it for the sake of being nice to everyone then it won’t be able to achieve its promise of freedom from corporate overlords. Independence and self determination is the point, not being chill and cool and like, totally copacetic with all mankind, man.

I would say try it, and you’ll find without a lot of context cues, most people won’t understand you. Language is fundamentally about communication, so the measure is not whether it conforms to some rote form but whether it is effective at conveying an idea. I would say based on that, octopodes is wrong.

That’s a theory based on the origin of the word, but nobody says that and if you tried to use it to communicate that idea, most people wouldn’t understand what you were talking about. So under a descriptive model of language, no, it isn’t octopodes. It’s only right if it works, and you can’t dictate language rules based on some preconceived idea of what is “correct”. Language is negotiated, not mandated.

Yup, you can do this for any loanword with unusual pluralisation. You can either use the plural form from the source language or from English.

Octopi can also be octopusses for instance, but some people will tell you that’s wrong. Ultimately really, if your language is accepted and nobody is confused, it’s valid. The rules really aren’t as concrete as many people seem to believe.

Yeah, okay, see that’s a genuine, principled and material explanation with what’s wrong with the OP’s complaint, and I agree. The laws don’t make a lot of sense.

What I don’t agree with, and I think it should be at least as obvious as the point you just made, is that the response, “you can’t make this complaint because you made an account here” is just thoroughly bankrupt. Of course people can make criticisms of the platform whilst having an account here.

Also though, your explanation that it’s in the specs and source code seems like a tacit admission that it’s not in the TOS, so appealing to some supposedly informed agreement to those TOS is doubly wrong.

So do we expect every user to read, understand, accept and agree with the specifications and source code of lemmy before they make an account, and having done so, never make any complaints about it?

This isn’t a difficult calculation - that person was effectively saying “yet you participate in lemmy” as a reason to dismiss any criticism. That should be on the face of it ridiculous. I don’t understand why anyone is taking their side except as a knee-jerk defense of their favourite platform.

Like perhaps the OP did? Seems like they had to personally accept the TOS, or at least tolerate it, but they also have a critique.

I also still don’t see how “yet you participate in lemmy” is a real answer.